Donald Trump Keeps Pushing Ted Cruz Citizenship Issue

The New York Times ^ | January 6, 2016 | Alan Rappeport

[House Atreides]

Donald J. Trump continued to fan the flames of doubt over Senator Ted Cruz's citizenship on Wednesday, suggesting that his Canadian roots might be a problem if he won the Republican presidential nomination.

The decision to confront Mr. Cruz more directly comes as Mr. Trump, who has dominated most national and state polls for months, faces the prospect of losing to the Texas senator in next month's Iowa caucuses. Popular among evangelical Christians and conservatives, Mr. Cruz has become a favorite to win the first contest of the nominating process.

[Godebert]

Ok, Sweet Pea.

[Rutabega]

His father wasn’t an American or an American citizen when Cruz was born. I don’t believe the wording means two parents, but that an American citizen mom is enough. Just saying...

[Heart of Georgia]

Ha-ha ... back at ya! I’ll even throw in a sweet southern Bless Your Heart!!!

[dp0622]

when you mentioned that PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES is on the line, it seems like even less of below the belt hit :)

Cruz is going after Trump, saying he wants to deport illegals just to let them back in.

i’m a Cruz firster, but don’t know if that statement is quite true :)

they’re trying to WIN.

it’s refreshing for a change.

but I don’t think either will cross the line because they may need each other one day after all is said and done and we need every good man we can get in some position of power, whether it be SCOTUS or POTUS or senate leader.

[Yosemitest]

You don't READ THE LAW, do you ?
You could NOT be MORE WRONG, even if you tried !

FACT: Cruz’s father’s Cuban nationality at the time of Cruz’s birth, is irrelevant, according to the law at that time,
just so long as he was a LEGAL Immigrant at the time of Ted Cruz's birth,
AND both of Ted Cruz's parents were legally married to each other.

What are the rules for people born between December 23, 1952 and November 13, 1986?

The 14th Amendment IS a part of the U.S. Constitution and states in SECTION 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
So, under that power to legislate, Congress legislated and the President signed into law:
When ONE parent was a US citizen and the other a foreign national,
the US citizen parent must have resided in the US for a total of 10 years prior to the birth of the child,
with five of the years after the age of 14.

... While there were initially rules regarding what the child must do to retain citizenship,
amendments since 1952 HAVE ELIMINATED THESE REQUIREMENTS.

When Ted Cruz was born, his parents were "IN WEDLOCK".

They married, moved to Calgary, Alberta, and in late 1970 had their first and only child, Rafael Edward Cruz.
Cruz was born on December 22, 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada where his parents, Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh Wilson and Rafael Bienvenido Cruz.

Cruz's mother was born and raised in Wilmington, Delaware, in a family of three quarters Irish and one quarter Italian descent.
Eleanor Darragh, mother of Ted Cruz, was raised in Delaware, graduated from a Catholic High School (1952) in the U.S., as well as Rice University (1956),
so clearly she meets the residency requirements.

Source

In 1957, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz (Ted Cruz's father) decided to get out of Cuba by applying to the University of Texas.
Upon being admitted, he adds, he got a four-year student visa at the U.S. Consulate in Havana.

"Since he liked to eat seven days a week, he worked seven days a week, and he paid his way through the University of Texas," Ted Cruz says of his father, "and then ended up getting a job and eventually going on to start a small business and to work towards the American dream."

Only he did that in Canada, where Ted was born.
His father went there after having earlier obtained political asylum in the U.S. when his student visa ran out.
He then got a green card, he says, and married Ted's mother, an American citizen.
The two of them moved to Canada to work in the oil industry.

"I worked in Canada for eight years," Rafael Cruz says. "And while I was in Canada, I became a Canadian citizen."

The elder Cruz says he renounced his Canadian citizenship when he finally became a U.S. citizen in 2005 —
48 years after leaving Cuba.
Why did he take so long to do it?
"I don't know. I guess laziness, or — I don't know," he says.

So there is the law for the time Ted Cruz was born,
AND HOW Ted Cruz's PARENTS fulfilled ALL those requirements of the law that time, for Ted Cruz to be a "Natural Born Citizen".
Ted Cruz did NOT NEED a Court and a Judge to "Nationalize" him.

“Senator Cruz became a U.S. citizen at birth, and he never had to go through a naturalization process after birth to become a U.S. citizen,” said spokeswoman Catherine Frazier.
... The U.S. Constitution allows only a “natural born” American citizen to serve as president.
Most legal scholars who have studied the question agree that includes an American born overseas to an American parent, such as Cruz.

[Yosemitest]

Donald "EMINENT DOMAIN FOR PRIVATE USE" TRUMP is losing his lead.
So he's panicking and starting to get desperate.

Donald Trump and Eminent Domain, August 22nd, 2015

... More, Trump has publicly defended the confiscation of private property for eminent domain, even when the use for which the property is confiscated is purely private in nature:

Trump consistently defended the use of eminent domain.
Interviewed by John Stossel on ABC News, he said:
"Cities have the right to condemn for the good of the city.
Everybody coming into Atlantic City sees this terrible house instead of staring at beautiful fountains and beautiful other things that would be good."
Challenged by Stossel, he said
that eminent domain was necessary to build schools and roads.
But of course he just wanted to build a limousine parking lot.

Once again, this is Donald Trump's vision of private property rights when he was just another private citizen.
Imagine how much more damage he could do as the leader of the Federal executive branch.

[CA Conservative]

Nice try. You took your own definition of natural born citizen and tried to insert it as if the Constitution defined it the same way. Very deceitful.

But the Constitution does not define the term. So the eligibility requirements are: over 35 years old; have lived in the US for at least 14 years, and a natural born citizen. And the VAST majority of legal and constitutional scholars on both sides of the political spectrum do NOT interpret NBC the way that you do. You may disagree, but that is your own opinion, and is certainly not more credible than the array of countervailing opinions.

[CA Conservative]

What do you suppose the explanation is for Cruz refusing to agree to unsealing his US and Canadian citizenship files?

I keep hearing this claim. Please provide a link to any documentation showing that the request has been made to Cruz and he has refused. I searched and the only thing I found was where someone had requested the records from USCIC, and was informed that BY LAW they could only release any information of that type if the requester submitted written authorization from the subject of the request. There was no document showing that the person submitting the request ever asked Cruz for permission and was refused. If you have such proof, please provide it. Otherwise please quit spreading this deceitful meme.

[Forty-Niner]

When the Constitution was written a woman did not hold citizenship separate from her father/husband. I wonder how the courts will judge that now?

It may not matter. The founders used a term, Natural Born Citizen, that had been in use for a couple of thousand years. In the 18th century the meaning was “born in a country to parents that were it’s citizens.”

The Founders idea was that they could avoid their experience with King George III, who had German influence/loyalties in his life, by requiring that a President’s parents both be citizens so that a child’s upbringing would be exclusively American.

While I don’t doubt Cruz’s loyalty, by the letter of the law Cruz does not meet the requirement. Ignoring the clearly written requirements had disastrous results for the US by allowing Obama to skirt them unchallenged. The fears of the Founders came to be!

In Obama’s case it appears the USSC was unwilling to overturn an elected and sitting President. I wonder what they’ll do if a candidate is challenged before an election. I’ll speculate that they will address the issue in that instance., and uphold the letter of the law.....

Business as usual.....the Democrats won’t let the Republicans get away with things that the Democrats are allowed to get away with because of Republican unwillingness to confront them. Sigh!

[Disestablishmentarian]

Nice partial homework on the 1790 law. It was changed however in 1795 to remove the words “Natural born.”

So Cruz is a citizen through his mother (assuming she is a citizen), but still not necessarily eligible to be President.

Canada btw, was not a U.S. possession.

I’m not sure Cruz can totally address this without a court ruling. I hope he can do this so that it will not be an issue if he is nominated to either of the top 2 spots.

[Disestablishmentarian]

Interesting analysis Forty-Niner.

Here is a question for you: Is there any other category of citizen besides the 2 that I can think of-—”Naturalized” or “Natural born”?

[Forty-Niner]

Remember that the Constitution does not say who shall be a citizen. It only mentions 2 of many conceivable types.....those citizens that are naturalized (an inclusive term), and, as a limiting restriction on who can be President, only those whose parentage and birthplace is totally American. (A pedigree requirement). The Constitution does NOT say that everyone except Naturalized Citizens are eligible, its says only those with a pedigree ARE eligible.

As to your question....

Yes...... a simple “born citizen.” The fourteenth Amendment recognized the existence of other types of born citizens and defined their circumstance. As the USSC said of this citizen in Wong Arc.......(p) the rights of (Won Arc) are no different than a NBC..... thereby saying that a born citizen and a NBC ARE different, but not in their rights as citizens.

Notice that the Court didn’t say the Wong WAS a NBC.....the Court was being careful in it’s decision not to create a sort of 2nd class citizen...... also remember that running for President is NOT a right and the Constitution lays out restrictive eligibility requirements for it in Article II. The Constitution does not say Anyone except a naturalized citizen can be President as would be the case if there were only 2 types of citizens.

Note that the term NBC was not coined by the Founders. This term goes back to the Roman Republic, and was still in use in jurist writings in the 18th century. The Framers felt no need to define a term well known in legal circles at the Founding.

Also note that the term NBC only occurs once in the Constitution and that is in the limiting requirements for who can be President. The term was NOT used in the requirements for any other elected official....re: Senator or House Rep. etc.

[Forty-Niner]

I believe that there exists divorce papers for the Obama/Dunham marriage.....

[Cboldt]

There are other ways to compartmentalize the issue.

Katyal and Clenet compartmentalize citizenship on a "naturalized" (meaning some sort of proceeding) and "not naturalized," with every citizen in the "didn't go through a naturalization proceeding" in the natural born citizen category.

Another way to compartmentalize the issue is "statutory" vs. "citizen without resort to statute," with those who are citizens without resort to a statute being "natural born citizens." The logic there is that if citizenship depends on a statute, the only statutory power Congress has vis a vis citizenship is the power of naturalization. Courts adopt this version of compartmentalizing, finding that a person whose citizenship depends on a statute are naturalized, whether the statute attaches citizenship at birth without a naturalization proceeding, or attaches after birth via a naturalization proceeding.

The outcome of the analysis depends on which method of compartmentalizing one chooses.

If Cruz had been born before 1934, under the same circumstances (born in Canada to a US citizen mother who had resided in the US, and an alien father), he could not be a US citizen at all. His citizenship depends on the statute.

The prevailing view is that Congress has the power to redefine NBC without amending the constitution. It does so by passing an act that confers citizenship without requiring a naturalization proceeding, where that citizenship attaches at birth.

[Forty-Niner]

“Well, I don’t know why one who is so far ahead in the polls would find the need to start getting UGLY to a fine man as Cruz.”

Do you think the Democrats WON’T bring it up?

Alan Grayson (D Fla.) is already planning to file suit if Cruz becomes the nominee.

Just because the Republicans didn’t have the nads to take out Obama on the eligibility issue, doesn’t mean the Democrats won’t do it with Cruz. (even with Cruz being a “protected class” Hispanic, and Grayson being white.) Trump knows that the Democrats WILL play hardball this election as they always do!

[Disestablishmentarian]

Thank you, Forty-Niner. Great analysis, again.

You correctly went to the heart of my question, demonstrating that a “Born Citizen” is not necessarily a “Natural Born Citizen” eligible to be President.

Honestly, I hope you are wrong, as Cruz needs to be qualified to be POTUS in order to be Veep (and later, POTUS, after Trump administration).

[Cboldt]

Wong Kim Ark is a 14th amendment citizenship issue, whereas Cruz is a statutory citizenship issue. Wong Kim Ark was born in the US, so fits into the 14th amendment, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," with the argument in that case being over the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Cruz was not born in the US. His citizenship depends on a statute. The question there is whether citizenship that depends on a statute is "naturalization" or not.

The prevailing sentiment is that statutory citizenship that is conditioned only on the circumstance of birth is not naturalization. I disagree with that, and so do SCOTUS cases.

I suspect the courts will view the definition of NBC as a political issue. It means whatever the people accept it to mean with any particular candidate.

[Disestablishmentarian]

This is another interesting analysis.

I WANT Cruz to be eligible; but, as Trump says, it is unresolved at this time.

It is not Mark Levin’s finest hour to cry like a little Democrat baby about this. But . . . I think Levin also defended Obama on the “Birther” question, though it was the FACTS that are in question there, not the LAW (as in case of Cruz). No one is questioning Cruz’s honesty.

[Oklahoma]

It was a marriage of convenience. Stanley Ann found herself expecting and the father was a married, black communist. To make the birth appear legitimate she married the Kenyan thereby giving him a better chance to remain in the country. It saved Davis any known grief from his wife and gave the baby a name.

After the birth the sham marriage was tossed aside.

[Cboldt]

-- ... though it was the FACTS that are in question there, not the LAW (as in case of Cruz). No one is questioning Cruz's honesty. --

Yup. But the law is easily obfuscated, plus no entity with "authority" (secretaries of state for ballot access, the courts) are going to produce a substantive analysis of the law.

What will happen is the creation of a legal fiction that all births that do not involve a naturalization proceeding are natural born. It doesn't matter whether that is true or false, what matters is that definition produces the desired result. The reason that result is desired is that nobody wants to create a legal/constitutional mess after the campaign has been legitimized as far as it has. Face to save and all that.

Assuming the law is opposite, that truth will be either ignored or written off as a historic artifact. The original meaning of the term has ZERO impact on the ultimate outcome. Living constitution, the one that has abortion and homosexual marriage as guaranteed civil rights.

Second amendment case law follows this pattern. When the body of decision repeats a falsehood enough times, it becomes the truth. A few people know otherwise, but numbers always beats truth, force always beats right.

On 2nd amendment, see the Presser case, and then see how it is applied. Presser says "state may not," and courts that cite Presser claim that Presser stands for the proposition that "states may." Total opposite.

NBC will go the same way.